Forums
  • General »
  • Congress passes health care bill!

Post a Reply

Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:"HURP DERP SOCIALISM BIG GOVERMENT DERP"

System of government and economy are two very different things... democratic government can exist just as easily under a socialist system as under a capitalist one.
That has actually happened before, depending on how you define socialism.
It is happening right now in countries that are much better for it.
Depends on how you define socialism, though. Socialism used to mean worker control of the economy, but in America at least, it now means "big guvment" and nationalization of industries. I wouldn't say that any country is really doing anything with socialism right now.

Socialism is not restricted to either of those descriptions, nor has it ever been. Socialism has various degrees, and there are countries now that can be considered socialist.

Photobucket

nasherooni13 wrote:
ETito wrote:
numonex wrote:
Wesker00 wrote:was a 220 to 215 vote. 1 republican voted for it, the rest of them fucking raged! republicans are flipping the fuck out! watch Fox. it's comedy gold. NO LINKS FOR YOU
Open up and lube your sphincters because its going to be working stiff like us who will be footing the bill for this welfare extension.Canada looks better and better with each passing day...

If I have to work a few extra hours to help someone's grandma get health treatment for a price she can afford, I'm all for it.
Pff speak for yourself man, my family comes first....I'm probably going to have trouble paying for all of my families health care let alone some fucker who refuses to look for a job.

This is nothing new. It's like basic welfare, actually.

There are people who are completely uninterested in getting jobs.

But you know what? You're grouping people who are less fortunate with people who don't care.

They're just personal variables in the grand scheme of things. I personally don't think it's a bad thing to have health insurance and to help the less fortunate.

Then again, my consideration for others probably outclasses everyone on these boards lol.

Photobucket Fuck...Yo...COUCH!

feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:"HURP DERP SOCIALISM BIG GOVERMENT DERP"

System of government and economy are two very different things... democratic government can exist just as easily under a socialist system as under a capitalist one.
That has actually happened before, depending on how you define socialism.
It is happening right now in countries that are much better for it.
Depends on how you define socialism, though. Socialism used to mean worker control of the economy, but in America at least, it now means "big guvment" and nationalization of industries. I wouldn't say that any country is really doing anything with socialism right now.
Socialism is not restricted to either of those descriptions, nor has it ever been. Socialism has various degrees, and there are countries now that can be considered socialist.

Such as what countries?

There was no such thing as a socialist who advocated a centralized state through the 19th century.

This user is completely without Sig... Sigless. Not at all Siggy wit' it. This is an ex-Sig.

Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:"HURP DERP SOCIALISM BIG GOVERMENT DERP"

System of government and economy are two very different things... democratic government can exist just as easily under a socialist system as under a capitalist one.
That has actually happened before, depending on how you define socialism.
It is happening right now in countries that are much better for it.
Depends on how you define socialism, though. Socialism used to mean worker control of the economy, but in America at least, it now means "big guvment" and nationalization of industries. I wouldn't say that any country is really doing anything with socialism right now.
Socialism is not restricted to either of those descriptions, nor has it ever been. Socialism has various degrees, and there are countries now that can be considered socialist.
Such as what countries?

There was no such thing as a socialist who advocated a centralized state through the 19th century.

The best examples are the Nordic countries, Norway in particular. They operate on a social democratic/democratic socialist model.

Photobucket

feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:"HURP DERP SOCIALISM BIG GOVERMENT DERP"

System of government and economy are two very different things... democratic government can exist just as easily under a socialist system as under a capitalist one.
That has actually happened before, depending on how you define socialism.
It is happening right now in countries that are much better for it.
Depends on how you define socialism, though. Socialism used to mean worker control of the economy, but in America at least, it now means "big guvment" and nationalization of industries. I wouldn't say that any country is really doing anything with socialism right now.
Socialism is not restricted to either of those descriptions, nor has it ever been. Socialism has various degrees, and there are countries now that can be considered socialist.
Such as what countries?There was no such thing as a socialist who advocated a centralized state through the 19th century.

The best examples are the Nordic countries, Norway in particular. They operate on a social democratic/democratic socialist model.

Welfare programs to not constitute socialism, and social democratic parties are not socialist in any way. The means of production are not collectivized in any way.

This user is completely without Sig... Sigless. Not at all Siggy wit' it. This is an ex-Sig.

Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:"HURP DERP SOCIALISM BIG GOVERMENT DERP"

System of government and economy are two very different things... democratic government can exist just as easily under a socialist system as under a capitalist one.
That has actually happened before, depending on how you define socialism.
It is happening right now in countries that are much better for it.
Depends on how you define socialism, though. Socialism used to mean worker control of the economy, but in America at least, it now means "big guvment" and nationalization of industries. I wouldn't say that any country is really doing anything with socialism right now.
Socialism is not restricted to either of those descriptions, nor has it ever been. Socialism has various degrees, and there are countries now that can be considered socialist.
Such as what countries?There was no such thing as a socialist who advocated a centralized state through the 19th century.

The best examples are the Nordic countries, Norway in particular. They operate on a social democratic/democratic socialist model.
Welfare programs to not constitute socialism, and social democratic parties are not socialist in any way. The means of production are not collectivized in any way.

Didn't say they were... but yes, social democratic parties can in fact be socialist. Norway maintains state ownership of key economic sectors, using this control to create egalitarian society. Socialism is a socioeconomic system, not just an economic one. Norway is in my eyes a democratic socialist country. The ruling party in Norway is affiliated with Socialist International, and I would be inclined to think that SI knows what constitutes socialism more than you do. Your interpretation of socialism is too narrow.

Photobucket

feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:
feanaro wrote:
Bazin wrote:"HURP DERP SOCIALISM BIG GOVERMENT DERP"

System of government and economy are two very different things... democratic government can exist just as easily under a socialist system as under a capitalist one.
That has actually happened before, depending on how you define socialism.
It is happening right now in countries that are much better for it.
Depends on how you define socialism, though. Socialism used to mean worker control of the economy, but in America at least, it now means "big guvment" and nationalization of industries. I wouldn't say that any country is really doing anything with socialism right now.
Socialism is not restricted to either of those descriptions, nor has it ever been. Socialism has various degrees, and there are countries now that can be considered socialist.
Such as what countries?There was no such thing as a socialist who advocated a centralized state through the 19th century.

The best examples are the Nordic countries, Norway in particular. They operate on a social democratic/democratic socialist model.
Welfare programs to not constitute socialism, and social democratic parties are not socialist in any way. The means of production are not collectivized in any way.
Didn't say they were... but yes, social democratic parties can in fact be socialist. Norway maintains state ownership of key economic sectors, using this control to create egalitarian society. Socialism is a socioeconomic system, not just an economic one. Norway is in my eyes a democratic socialist country. The ruling party in Norway is affiliated with Socialist International, and I would be inclined to think that SI knows what constitutes socialism more than you do. Your interpretation of socialism is too narrow.

Keynesian economics are not socialist. Every country in the world has some level of state ownership, even capitalist "success stories" like Hong Kong, where half the population would be living in shacks if it weren't for government subsidized housing. Right-wing dictatorships like Saudi Arabia are also welfare states that run extensive welfare programs, are they socialist? The basic academic, universal definition of socialism is a collectivized means of production. Norway workers are not in control, and there is still a class system. Not very socialist.

SI is a joke. I bet the Democrats could join the SI. New Labour is a part of it, right? Any centrist party can join the SI.

This user is completely without Sig... Sigless. Not at all Siggy wit' it. This is an ex-Sig.

nasherooni13 wrote:
ETito wrote:
numonex wrote:
Wesker00 wrote:was a 220 to 215 vote. 1 republican voted for it, the rest of them fucking raged! republicans are flipping the fuck out! watch Fox. it's comedy gold. Lol gleen beck. wait for :32
Open up and lube your sphincters because its going to be working stiff like us who will be footing the bill for this welfare extension.Canada looks better and better with each passing day...

If I have to work a few extra hours to help someone's grandma get health treatment for a price she can afford, I'm all for it.
Pff speak for yourself man, my family comes first....I'm probably going to have trouble paying for all of my families health care let alone some fucker who refuses to look for a job.

This. This is exactly my point. Considering that the average middle class person will not qualify to see any benefit from this bill but its funding rides on the backs of the middle class is WRONG. And I am with Nash. I busted my ass to put myself through school..it cost me $60K+ so that I could get a job that pays and has healthcare options. Why should I have to pay for the lazy people who dont opt to put themselves through school but instead go on welfare and pop out kids. Sorry but I am for the people like me that want to contribute to society not the people that want to take take take.

Photobucket

TouchyChaff2 wrote:
nasherooni13 wrote:
Wesker00 wrote:
numonex wrote:
jointman99 wrote:For reals? Because I am getting raped on insurance.
Do you think this bill will help you? LOL!!!
it lowers costs. durr.
I guarantee you it won't.....and if it does, that money comes out of your taxesThis bill forces me to buy health insurance, umm excuse me but why the fuck should I be forced to buy health insurance? When the democrats claim alleged victory for covering more americans it wont be because insurance is cheaper, only because they were forced to buy it.

Jeez some people don't pay attention. They already did research and showed that if we didn't change health care in 2015 it would cost (for example: a family $15000 a yr) and with this change, it will now cost $20,000. They proved it would actually make it worse but ppl don't give a shit.

Do you honestly think they can raise the quality of health care, extend it to millions of ppl who don't have it now, AND lower costs?? Who exactly will be footing the bill? Pull your head outta your ass kiddos and do the math/use logic

This is exactly correct. This plan is designed to give out healthcare to the poor at the expense of the middle class. The average family pays about 6K a year now.. So you take the $6,000 a year today and look at 2015 whisc is at $15,000.... That HUGE jump in premiums that WORKING people will have to pay is how the lazy non-workers will get theirs for free.

This country needs a revolt... A civil war!

Photobucket

nasherooni13 wrote:
Wesker00 wrote:
Xion_XIV_OrgXIII wrote:
nasherooni13 wrote:
Wesker00 wrote:
numonex wrote:
jointman99 wrote:For reals? Because I am getting raped on insurance.
Do you think this bill will help you? LOL!!!
it lowers costs. durr.
I guarantee you it won't.....and if it does, that money comes out of your taxesThis bill forces me to buy health insurance, umm excuse me but why the fuck should I be forced to buy health insurance? When the democrats claim alleged victory for covering more americans it wont be because insurance is cheaper, only because they were forced to buy it.

Apparently, a lot of the funds for coverage will come out of Medicaid's and Medicare's funding, which amounts to a fuckton.Just putting that out there.

fixed. nash is just butt hurt.
Butt hurt? I am pissed yes, I've seen this shit before and your dumbass hasn't, try working in a country besides america man, try it.....50% of my paycheck went to taxes in england....cause that shit healthcare, I gotta pay for some smokers lung cancer and some fat bastards heart attack bill....
Nash has a point. This is going to end up costing the middle class some hard earned cash. If you think that medicade and medicare are going to cover it, then you've got another thing coming. I've worked for the social welfare system for a while, and have seen many things that the middle class pays for. This will end up being one more. When you guys go out in the world and start to make salary, or anything over $50,000 a year, you'll see where your money is going, and realize that it wasn't that great of an idea. There are better ways to help out those who are below the poverty line, without placing a financial burden on others.
Edited on 11/08/2009 @ 04:57:PM pst
" For Southern society was above all a society of manners, an incredible triumph of manners, and a twilight of manners seems a twilight of the world..."

Post a Reply